In reality, it's impossible to cover yourself in glory as a conservative- fiscal or social conservatism
- Thread starter Jalether
- Start date
ill
Superstar
Yes
Being at levels not seen since WW2 probably isn't a good look, regardless of our ability to service the debt. We're currently paying over $800 billion in interest-only every year just to service that debt. I agree that its not a huge issue right now but its not a good look long term.
Eternal Tecate
Superstar
lol what
Communism entails a belief in an authority strong enough to fight off prospective oligarchs. It also entails valuing materialism over sentimentality (facts over feelings, science over magic/ mystery).
What we call conservatives in America are not actually conservatives. Both "republicans" and "democrats" are liberals in the scope of history. Neither believe in authority. They're both anarchists at the end of the day. They might call themselves libertarians or socialists, but both "sides" believe in the individual's right to exploit another individual for economic gain.
"Fiscal conservatives" are anarchists that fight against the state. They want to maintain the right of financial elites to make money by any means necessary. Strong states put a check on that by taxing away capital gains.
Conservatives put social issues aside to focus on material reality. Liberals put social issues above economic issues, and put stuff like racism and magic. Nazis are anarchist pagans, the same way Marianne Williamson is. Scandinavian viking Norse myth white Supremacists believe in myths and rituals the same way teenage witch astrology girls do. They're the same. The elite on both sides of the American political aisle take part in sexual degeneracy, a liberal staple.
Conservatives believe in autocratic rulers. Stalin and Mao were conservatives. Xi and Kim Jong Un are conservatives. A strong leader backed by the people is the only way to fend off oligarchic exploitation. Christianity was born out of Jesus stepping up to fight the Roman oligarchy that had indebted and impoverished the common people of the empire.
Last edited:
mc_brew
#NotMyPresident
that's my point exactly... @the cac mamba is putting on a masterclass in trolling....
look at it this way, imagine someone is going to a dealership to buy a used car... they already know the salesman is a slimy low down no good conman.... the car they're looking at is only worth $10k and they know up front the salesman is going to try to get them to pay $20k for it.... they already know this going in.... armed with all this info, they still come out of the dealership with the keys to that very car... only they didn't pay $10k for it, or $20k, instead they paid $30k for it... that's a masterclass right there.... that's @the cac mamba for you...
Eternal Tecate
Superstar
If you tax capital gains 100% (including land) then you can eliminate all other taxes while paying for massive public works.
settle down, castroSecure Da Bag
Veteran
If you implemented Bernie's usage tax, you'd get plenty of money to fund infrastructure across the country.
If you had a sliding scale of taxation based on how long you kept a stock, you'd probably get more stability in the stock market.
I get a little lost in that last sentence there. Jesus was far closer to an anarchist than the Republicans/Democrats you're calling anarchist liberals. He exerted no compulsion over the public and called for his followers to use neither violence nor dominance while leading.
I don't know how much evidence there is of Jesus being an anarchist. He also said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." His beef with the establishment seemed more to be with their corruption (the cleansing of the temple) rather than their very existence.
I didn't say Jesus was an anarchist, but he's more of an anarchist than current Republicans and Democrats by a long shot. Throughout his entire ministry he refused to take positions of power, and told his disciples not to take positions of power either. He specifically told his followers that they were not to rule by exercising authority over other people:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:41-45, Luke 22:24-27
They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” - Mark 9:33-35, Matthew 18:1-4
"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." - Matthew 23:8-12
An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.” - Luke 9:46-48
When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. - John 6:14-15
Sadly that passage has been misused over history due to the fact that we've lost track of the historical context. This is the actual passage:
But he perceived their craftiness and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?” They said, “Caesar’s.” He said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him by what he said, and being amazed by his answer they became silent.
N.T. Wright has a strong background of the entire passage that's worth reading in detail, but the first key point is that Jesus specifically asks for a coin and its picture and the inscription for a reason. First, he was proving that the Pharisees were carrying the Roman money on them. Second, he was calling attention to the image and inscription on the coin, both of which strict Jews considered blasphemous. The inscription read, "Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of divine Augustus" so it was literally giving tribute to a false god and showing an image that Pharisees considered idolatrous. Jesus was proving to the crowd that these Pharisees attempting to trap him were hypocrites and had already compromised themselves and their claims even by carrying the empire's idolatrous money. (FWIW, off the top of my head I don't believe there's any point in the gospels where Jesus is ever described as handling money. When the question of the temple tax comes in Matthew 17, Jesus has no coins, but tells Peter to find the coin for the tax in a fish's mouth. He also repeatedly tells his followers to get rid of their money.) On of top of that, the logic of the mainstream interpretation is ridiculous - Jesus would never say, "Well, some things are for God and other things are for Caesar." Jesus makes clear in every part of his ministry that ALL things are for God, life isn't compromised.
The primary point of the passage isn't to say, "Obey the empire", the primary point of the passage was to say, "You all have already compromised yourselves with the empire, we're going to follow after the things of God." That's why the Pharisees were so amazed by his answer and fell emasculated in front of the people.
Jesus never says, "Overthrow the rulers", but his beef with how people wielded power went far beyond corruption alone. Besides the passages I shared above telling his followers to be servants and not rulers, there isn't a single word from Jesus that suggests he ever wanted those who followed him to become part of any power structure. If he had, wouldn't he have instructed them on how to wield power in such a situation? Yet there's not a word of that anywhere in the Gospels outside of "It shall not be so among you."
The poster I was responded to claimed, "A strong leader backed by the people is the only way to fend off oligarchic exploitation," then cited Jesus as an example. But while Jesus exhibited a form of strength for sure, he also exhibited the very opposite of authoritarianism, and at no point attempted to be the head of a political movement. I could also go into quite a bit of detail regarding Jesus's strong position of nonviolence, which is untenable for authoritarian rule.
ill
Superstar
We haven't had fiscal conservatism since 9/11. But yes, I agree. All of the stimulus and tax cuts for the rich aren't doing us favors in the debt department.
Gritsngravy
Superstar
Eternal Tecate
Superstar
His enemy was the Roman empire. The empire was dominated by a creditor class that indebted the rest of the population. He called for debt cancelation. He believed that the land belonged to God, and no man should have private control over it.
That belief functionally necessitates a ruler working on behalf of the commons. Pre-christianity has a long history of middle eastern rulers like Hammurabi canceling debts to re-set the economy.